Talk:Renaissance (French political party)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

LREM members of regional councils

Just keeping this as a note to self:

• Nouvelle-Aquitaine

• Florent Boudié

• Île-de-France

• Frédérique Dumas
• Thierry Solère
• Patrick Toulmet

• Bretagne

• Richard Ferrand
• Nicole Le Peih
• Paul Molac

• Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

• Olga Givernet
• Marjolaine Meynier-Millefert
• Olivier Véran
• Guillaume Gibouin
• Françoise Casalino
• Stéphane Gemmani (LRC–Cap21, not part of the group, candidate for leadership of senatorial list)

• Pays de la Loire

• Emmanuelle Bouchaud
• Grégoire Jauneault
• Aykel Garbaa

• Guadeloupe

• Ary Chalus
• Olivier Serva
• Dominique Théophile

• Grand Est

• Sylvain Waserman (MoDem–LREM)
• Jean-Pierre Masseret
• Diana André
• Rachel Thomas (not invested)

• La Réunion

• Karine Nabénésa (La Réunion En Marche)
• Michel Dennemont (La Réunion En Marche)
• Marie-Rose Won Fah Hin (La Réunion En Marche)
• Monique Bernard (La République En Marche)
• Jean-Gaël Moutoussamy Anda (La République En Marche)
• Léopoldine Settama-Vidon (La République En Marche)

• Occitanie

• Jennifer Courtois-Périssé

• Normandie

• Stéphane Travert resigned, replaced by François Dufour
• Hélène Burgat

• Hauts-de-France

• François Decoster (led senatorial list, part of UDI–UC group)

• Corsica

• Jean-Charles Orsucci
• Catherine Riera
• François Orlandi
• Marie-Hélène Padovani
• Antoine Poli
• Catherine Cognetti-Turchini

Mélencron (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Exclamation mark

I'd just like to sound this out before making (another) RM request – back in January, the French version of this article was moved to the version without the exclamation mark. The exclamation mark largely isn't used in media and the official names of its parliamentary groups in the National Assembly and Senate don't retain it. The logo submitted to the INPI uses it, but the official name of the association is declared as "La République en marche" (previously just "En marche" before it was renamed). Thoughts? Mélencron (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And if the exclamation mark is kept, there should be a space just before it. Syced (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Add "Neoliberalism"

Add "Neoliberalism" under ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. In my view, neo-liberalism is a over-used term and does not apply to LRM. --Checco (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be added. Its policies are clearly neoliberal. --BernardaAlba (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Political position

What constitutes an appropriate source for the party's political position? Many articles have stated the party leans right of centre, and that should be expressed to some extent here. --RaviC (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd personally consider LREM to be centre-right, but I'd prefer a French-language or academic source if possible. The sources I'm finding either refer to other parties (Agir/UDI) but not to LREM. Mélencron (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I modified the article according to the french consensus. Economico98 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Radical centrism

I think radical centrism is exactly what the party offers because, the party uses left and right wing ideas that they think are good and use them that’s what makes radical centrist. It is also agreed by many users but, they are also disagreed but many users. That’s why I want to put it under a disputed statement. - Social Studies Rules (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's at best a marketing term for political parties, at worst utterly meaningless – we have common, widely-recognised political ideologies such as liberalism and centrism cited and referenced for this article, so IMO we don't need questionable ideologies backed up by media sources.--Autospark (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is clearly right-wing. Oddeivind (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What is their political agenda?

Hi. What is the political agenda of LREM? The article only briefly drops ideological associations of the party, but what is their political agenda? Do they even have any concrete agenda? RhinoMind (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutral tone

This passage in the introduction for the article doesn't seem to be neutral, as well having grammatical errors: "This figure is often used by its partisans to prove that LREM managed to gather a large majority within one year of campaign. However, objective observers tend to notice he gathered only 18.7% of the votes of the persons in age to vote on the first round of the presidential election, leaving more than 80% of the french people unsatisfied."

Perhaps this passage should be cut out and the previous sentence about the second round vote receives an addition saying something like "and received 24.01% of the vote in the first round." --Sophistry27 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Economic liberalism

I think it would be better to include economic liberalism in the ideological category in the infobox. En Marche! and Macron's government appears to be implementing economic liberalization and pro-business policies in many ways. In Wikipedia, economic liberalism is sometimes marked in the infobox among centrist parties, not right-wing or center-right parties.(ex. Prosperity Party, Democratic Alliance (South Africa))--삭은사과 (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We already have Liberalism listed in the Infobox, with references, so Economic liberalism would be redundant.--Autospark (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a duplicate. It's because liberalism is also divided into a lot of ideas. 'En Marche!' needs to be marked individually, especially because of its distinctive economic liberalism.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Liberalism" is quite enough. LREM is a full-fledged liberal party, both socially and economically. Thus, I would remove not only "Economic liberalism", but also "Social liberalism" from the infobox. "Pro-Europeanism" is redundant too. --Checco (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm against it. This is because liberalism is not just social and economic liberalism. Even liberal parties in the Republic of Korea are politically and structurally oriented toward liberal reform, while at the same time pursuing social conservatism, which puts forward traditional values in some social issues. And they are not oriented toward economic liberalism.(ex. Party for Democracy and Peace, Party for People's Livelihoods)--삭은사과 (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of liberalism in South Korea and I have to say that is merely an exception. --Checco (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with that opinion. En Marche! should be clearly written in the infobox as a advocate of social liberalism and economic liberalism. Because the liberalism that En Marche! claims is far from classical liberal philosophy. It is also questionable whether Macron's government's patriotism is also a western-style liberal move by contemporary standards. Liberalism has detailed ideas, and En Marche! mainly advocates social and economic liberalism.--삭은사과 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Checco isn't advocating adding "classical liberalism" to the Infobox. No one is advocating this article should describe LREM as classical liberal party.--Autospark (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. That's why En Marche! You have to mark both social and economic liberalism in the infobox. En Marche! takes social liberalism and economic liberalism as the main pillars, but it is hard to say that it advocates other forms of liberalism.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If there's a consensus that the party is liberal both economically and socially, I don't see the harm of listing both of these terms. At worst, they're redundant, but they're likely to avoid any confusion. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn’t bloat infoboxes with redundant terms and categories. There’s enough of that already on en.wiki articles about political parties – if a party like LREM can be described using the fewest (reference-backed) ideological terms as possible, we should.--Autospark (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as a redundant. The reason has already been explained.--삭은사과 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Worst case, it's redundant, which is harmless. Best case, it avoids confusion. This isn't a tough choice. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Needless redundancies causes confusion. Political party articles are already overflowing with them – and poorly-sourced claims. Ideally no more than two ideologies should be listed in Infoboxes, with rare exceptions.--Autospark (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There's more potential for confusion from leaving out the details and expecting readers to infer them. Ideally, we should be accurate and comprehensive. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I never argued for "classical liberalism". I agree with User:Autospark that "less is more": one or two ideologies should be ideally listed in infoboxes. In this case, I would have just "liberalism". "Pro-Europeanism" is particularly redundant to me, as well as "economic" and "social liberalism". --Checco (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Social liberalism and economic liberalism are only derivatives of liberalism, and cannot be seen as liberalism itself.--삭은사과 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that economic liberalism should be included, for the reasons given by 삭은사과 and 68.197.116.79. Helper201 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, to counter the point made by Checco, a party being ideologically liberal does not necessarily mean it is also economically liberal. The Liberal Democrats for instance draw upon social democracy and are not outrightly economically liberal. We should not use liberalism to automatically infer or imply economic liberalism, as this also breaks the WP:SYNTHESIS rule. Liberalism is also not always synonymous with pro-Europeanism, as there are liberal Eurosceptic parties, such as the UK Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party (Norway), which does not want Norway to join the EU. Adding one more ideology would not make the infobox overloaded or difficult to read and as 68.197.116.79 has said, it would simply add clarity. Helper201 (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the UK LibDems are a party of social liberalism (an ideology which is not to be confused with cultural liberalism, which several people in this discussion seem to), and it's not really a typical European liberal party due to its social-liberal, centre-left orientation. Secondly, political liberalism, the standard variety, inherently indicates economic liberalism as part of its policy mix, so adding economic liberalism to the Infobox is clearly a redundancy. It should be used, and referenced, in the article body of course, but not in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"... not really a typical European liberal party ..." this was one of my points. There are exceptions in which liberal parties are not economically liberal. While it may not be "standard" or the norm, it occurs. It is better we make things as clear as possible for readers. Most are not going to imply economic liberalism through just stating liberalism. We should think about this from a readers perspective who may not be especially versed in politics. There is absolutely know harm in having it in the infobox, it only adds clarity. Helper201 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I totaly agree with User:Autospark. The Lib Dems are a social-liberal party, while this one is a full-fledged liberal party. I think there is no need to specify anything else. --Checco (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because a party is socially liberal does not mean it is not also economically liberal. Helper201 (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but a liberal party by its nature is liberal in both economics and cultural/social matters.--Autospark (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What do the sources themselves are referring to when they refer to the party as social liberal? Because if they're merely saying that in social issues the party is liberal, then Cultural liberalism is more appropriate. Social liberalism supports a regulated free-market economy and is closer to social democracy; if by economic liberalism, you mean something closer laissez-faire, then the two are indeed mutually exclusive and one can't be both a social and economic liberal; however, one can be a cultural and economic liberal. While social liberalism seems to imply at least some progressivism on social issues (in that it wants to expand civil and political rights, among others; and view the common good as being harmonious with the freedom of the individual), economic liberalism is merely economic, so that one could be either a cultural liberal and economic liberal or a cultural conservative and economic liberal. Similarly, social conservatism doesn't mean merely being conservative on socio-cultural issues but rather one concerned about inequality (as it causes disruption and thus is a threat to the status quo), so it's usually but by not means always more centrist than liberal conservatives.--Davide King (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, this party is a full-fledged one, encompassing both economic and cultural liberalism. It is not particularly social-liberal. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I believe Social liberalism should be removed; and maybe we should add Cultural liberalism, if that's indeed what sources mean by social-liberal. Ultimately, it's the word meaning that matters; many sources speaks of communism, but they're actually referring to Marxism–Leninism. So the sources who say the party is social-liberal, but they're actually referring to cultural liberalism, then I think that's what we should wikilink to.--Davide King (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why don't we leave only 'liberalism' and 'economic liberalism' in Infobox?--삭은사과 (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it again, I think we can write "liberalism," "social liberalism" and "cultural liberalism" on the infobox. (It is to change the description of "social liberalism" to "cultural liberalism.")--삭은사과 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd challenge the idea that the party is culturally liberal. The party does not propose legalising or even decriminalising drug use or possession, even for minor drugs like cannabis which are less harmful than alcohol which is legal. You can still be fined, jailed and have a criminal record for drug possession in France. This is completely counter to the notion of cultural liberalism. Helper201 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I'll just restore it to "social liberalism." Social liberalism includes economic concepts anyway, but social liberalism as a term that contrasts with social conservatism mainly means social and cultural meaning.--삭은사과 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either Liberalism, Cultural liberalism and Economic liberalism, or only Liberalism and we put Cultural liberalism and Economic liberalism in the main body. Helper201, we can agree that they aren't civil libertarians, but I'd say they'd still be cultural liberals. 삭은사과, why did you revert this? I actually agree with the reasoning. Social liberalism is overused to mean Cultural liberalism and not its real meaning of supporting a welfare state and the social liberal paradigm during the post-war consensus. En Marche! seems to be well in line the neoliberal paradigm still ruling since the 1970s than the social liberalism much closer to social democracy. Yes, Social liberalism includes economic concepts (hence why it's not only Cultural liberalism), but they're to the left of En Marche! Most of social liberal parties today are really neo-social liberal or social neoliberal parties. They're only social liberals in the cultural sense, because economically they all moved to the right. Some social-democratic parties moved even righter.--Davide King (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I still don't think they are culturally liberal according to its Wikipedia definition (I agree they are certainly not civil libertarians). Being cultural liberalism is defined here as 'society that stresses the freedom of individuals from cultural norms' and 'cultural liberals are strongly opposed to censorship or any kind of oversight of spoken or written material'. France's National Assembly also passed a bill for strengthen online hate speech laws in July 2019 (see - Freedom of speech by country#France. Granted as I am not fluent in French I cannot read the citation given so I don't know how En Marche voted on this bill, but since they have a majority in the National Assembly, the party clearly didn't stand together against the bill and likely at least had a good amount for it, if not a majority. Restricting freedom of speech would also be a direct contradiction of the definition of cultural liberalism given on Wikipedia. Helper201 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In the end (and I am sorry to repeat myselfy), only the all-encompassing "liberalism" suits LREM. --Checco (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep the status quo as it is. As I explained above, I don't think LREM's ideology can be abbreviated by just "liberalism."--삭은사과 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Autospark, Checco, Helper201 and 삭은사과, please come discussing my proposal, so that we leave only Liberalism in Ideology and put Economic liberalism and Social liberalism in the new Factions/Political position parameter while the current Political position is renamed Political spectrum.--Davide King (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Centre-right

Attempting to resolve a dispute regarding the party's political position in the infobox and the lead based upon what is sourced. A clear impasse has been reached and other editors views are needed and/or perhaps a dispute resolution. Please read the thread below to assess the current situation and add your views. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this dispute with a general audience. Important that we reach a consensus. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I added centre-right to the infobox per this source - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/macrons-party-pulls-support-local-election-candidate-over-hijab-2021-05-12/ It explicitly states that the ruling party is centre-right, not the person and is a reliable, respected and recent source, so I see no problem with including it. This has been removed and it was requested that the matter be taken to the talk page. Helper201 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would rather that we were to reclassify LaREM as "centre-right", that we would use and refer to more than a singular journalistic source to back up that assertion.--Autospark (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism I've RPPed the page, I'll began looking for sources that claim "LaREM" as centre-left in some way or another --Vacant0 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Source 1 – LaREM is center-right in France, center-left in Europe

Besides the source above, I wasn't able to find anything more for now although I'll keep on looking. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather just keep "Centre" in the Infobox for now. I'm not in any disagreement that LaREM has centre-right elements, but we shouldn't but too much weight to a single journalistic source. (Also, it is important to indicate that LaREM is equidistant between the centre-left PS and centre-right LR.--Autospark (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, centrism is the most-sourced option, but we should keep looking for "centre-right" sources if there are any. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are two more supporting citations for centre-right:

• Is France having a Bernie Sanders moment?
• Republic of Islamophobia The Rise of Respectable Racism in France

Helper201 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The first of those sources, ricochet.media, is dubious – it's from an editorial, and the website itself does not seem to be a reliable source.--Autospark (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The second is certainly a very good source for this claim; a book written by a lecturer in French politics. Helper201 (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Gérard Grunberg who is a respectable source claimed that LREM is a center-left party (https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/05/gerard-grunberg-pour-linstant-il-ny-a-pas-de-recomposition-a-gauche-168901), but you will find very few sources if you try to find sources claiming LREM to be a center-right or a center-left party. In fact, even the terms centrist or center are rarely used.

Another source, a study on LREM's militants this time, shows the complexity of the party : <>https://tnova.fr/revues/un-peu-de-gauche-un-peu-de-droite-centriste-les-cinq-familles-des-adherents-lrem<>.

I think keeping a characterization as a centre party is the best choice.

Economico98 24 June 2021

Per WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page (with only Helper201 against), I am going to change the designation back to "centre". You can't say a party is "centre-right" based on a single source and a single issue (in this case, Islamophobia). I'm surprised this consensus wasn't enforced earlier. Any attempted change to this consensus must come to the talk page per WP:STATUSQUO. Anything less will be considered vandalism. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually there were two sources supporting this claim, not one. One from Reuters, a major and reliable news source, and another a book published by Oxford University Press. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We go by what reliable sources explicitly state and there are two reliable sources that explicitly support this. The views of editors don't change the facts or what these reliable sources state. Helper201 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 More sources for centre-right. I support the readdition of "centre-right" since its obviously sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The source published by Oxford University Press - Republic of Islamophobia The Rise of Respectable Racism in France - is also written by academic James Wolfreys who is a senior lecturer in French and European politics at King's College London. This is clearly a very good supporting citation. Helper201 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We're going to need to wait for more editors to weigh in before these changes are made- and especially for others (including me) to have time to review these sources for ourselves for veracity, validity, and relatedness to the matter. 4-2 is not a consensus by any means, so as long as that is the case, the article stays as is per WP:STATUSQUO. Please act per WP:GOODFAITH and do not make clearly controversial changes this article over the opposite considerations of a majority of your fellow authors (as you did back in June) until we can reach a consensus.

I, for one, am open minded to your changes. You make me and others far less open-minded the more you use the tool of edit reversion to unilaterally get what it seems you want, and not what most editors want (which is to have a reasonable conversation and reach an agreement that works for all). EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert. It seems fairly clear from the above discussion that the sources support this change, and we don't have to wait for you to "review" anything before making said change. You don't have unilateral rights over what goes in this article. Also your edit removed tags for primary source usage, which shouldn't be removed unless the concern is addressed or can be easily dismissed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with your re-additions of the primary source material. Not my intention to remove that, and I apologize if I did-- I've reverted back only the infobox designation. And it's not about my approval or the number of sources, which not all interested editors have had the chance to independently review (and which I and others are currently looking through). If an edit is controversial or contested (as this clearly is), it needs to go through consensus before it gets made. And right now, there's controversy over this and an even split of editors (3-3) in favor and opposed. There are even more editors who have continually reverted this page since the change was made unilaterally, which indicates even more opposition and controversy. This change should happen if it's supported by a consensus of editors after people have had time to review over the evidence and weigh in. Until then, it must revert to the status quo before the edits in controversy were made. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Streamlined discussion

I've finished reviewing over the sources listed by Vacant0 and Helper201. The only source I have a problem with is the BBC source (4), which cites LREM candidates allying with the centre-right, not being the centre-right. This happens all the time in global electoral coalitions-- just because you are in a coalition doesn't mean you adopt the ideologies of your coalition partners. The others are from valid, reputable news sources.

Now, let's take a look at the breadth of coverage in comparison that still notes that Macron's party is a centrist one in comparison to the centre-right Republicans and the centre-left Socialists. Keep in mind that LREM is also part of Renew Europe, a European coalition of centrist liberal parties.

• 1
• 2 (note how it clearly labels LREM as "center ground")
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

And now, here are six other sources that say LREM is centre-left. Keep in mind that Macron was a former Socialist cabinet minister before he created his own party.

• 1
• 2, "But he has taken it a step further by establishing a new centrist liberal party that claims to be both centre right and centre left."
• 3 "Mr. Macron, a center-left politician".
• 4 "A center-right mirror for Macron's center-left policies."
• 5 "The center-left (Mr. Macron's En Marche)"
• 6 "Macron, France's center-left candidate"

With what appears to be an equal number of sources saying this party is centre-left, centrist, and centre-right, the only appropriate designation that I think a reasonable viewer can come to is "Centre". I think this is further backed up by the fact that centre-leaning and disaffected Socialists and Republicans resigned from their parties in 2017 in roughly equal numbers to join LREM. This remains a topic for discussion so we can achieve a consensus before making further edits. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've discovered that there is a broad consensus on the French page for LREM that the positioning in the infobox should be "centre-left to centre-right". Here is a link to our fellow editors' discussion, which reached a consensus on this designation in late 2019. Since this is the consensus prior to us even having this debate, I've changed the lede and the infobox designation accordingly. This will be what's in the infobox until we've reached a broader conclusion. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this party should be simply labeled "Centre". It is appropriate to view LREM as an economic centre-right and a social centre-left because it is quite socially progressive to regard it as a "centre-right". (The fact that LREM is "Islamophobia" is a biased view based on the political correctness of the British and American media. There is no understanding of French progressive secular culture (=Laïcité), and LREM clearly takes a leftist perspective on social issues in the French political spectrum.) We don't have to write down both "Centre-right" and "Centre-left". --Storm598 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (reverted your edit for time being so that others can weigh in). EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the sources for centre-left given here is they break WP:SYNTH, as do the sources given by Vacant0 for centre-right, or are editorials/opinion pieces, which are not suitable sources for citations. The citations given here for centre-left are in regards to policies or Macron himself, not the party specifically, so break the synthesis rule. I was very careful to only cite sources that explicitly call the party centre-right and are not editorials or opinion pieces and come from well known reliable sources. I would recommend opening an WP:RFC under politics, government, and law to get more input from other editors if you still contest this. Helper201 (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into finding sources that met the rules regarding synth and not being editorials or opinion pieces and came from well-known reliable sources. I haven't heard of some of these sources and would question whether some of them meet the criteria of being reliable sources for citations on top of the synth and opinion issues. The page should've been left alone and not had all these ineligible sources rammed in without discussion and prior knowledge of these rules. The page now looks a mess and is just more confusing and harder to understand for the reader. Also, other language versions of Wikipedia have different rules and consensus on one does not automatically transfer over to consensus on another. Helper201 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your research-- it's why the articles you cited shouldn't be removed from the piece, regardless of the decision reached. But the rule behind WP:SYNTH is to not derive a single conclusion by stitching together unrelated arguments. All these articles cited state that the party is "centrist" or "centre-left" or "centre-right". Those articles treat those statements not as arguments, but as standalone and settled facts. So they meet the muster of WP:SYNTH. The fact that they each see the party in wildly different lights is probably why "centre" is a good way to go. And there is nothing in Wikipedia that states that opinion pieces or news articles from reputable papers, networks, and journals can't be valid sources. This isn't an academic paper, nor does Wikipedia encourage us to treat articles like an academic publication. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The articles I cited shouldn't be removed because they clearly and plainly meet these criteria and I made sure of that before I added them. I very much disagree, they don't "meet the muster of SYNTH". The synth rule is there specifically to stop this sort of behaviour, to stop editors drawing any conclusions that are not clearly and explicitly stead by the source. Also, please see WP:RSOPINION, it clearly states that opinion pieces do not constitute statements of fact. Helper201 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

These conclusions are clearly and capably stated by the source in full. The piece you cited-- accusing LREM of supporting Islamophobic policies, is itself an opinion piece. Anything can be construed as opinion. Again, you do not get to unilaterally decide what goes and what doesn't on this article. You don't own this article. You have a majority of editors who oppose what you do, yet you keep reverting pages to your revision despite attempts by at least three of us now to go out of our way to talk about this reasonably with you. That is arguably abusive behavior. Others may not have had the patience to keep up with this, but I do. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are clearly that in some of the sources you have given because they clearly state it. If you going to start saying anything can be opinion you might as well throw all rules and guidelines out the window. You are the one being unilateral. What I have changed and removed has been different to accommodate the changes YOU unilaterally make because you don't like what is properly sourced. I have not reverted back to the same thing but tried to accommodate for what you've been saying by adding more sources and removing what doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules. As I've said, open a request for comment and see what other editors have to say if you disagree with me. You don't get to unilaterally determine what is and is not a consensus and when information gets to be included or removed and when it doesn't. If sources don't meet the guidelines then it’s perfectly legitimate to remove them and the claim you are trying to shoehorn in. Also, this has been the long-held status quo for many months of which multiple other editors besides myself have reverted back to (centre to centre-right), because it is properly sourced with citations that meet the guidelines. I have not been unilaterally keeping it like this. You barged in months later and started messing with it all because you didn't like it. Helper201 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, give me a break. This is the "months long" status quo you created six months ago. Earlier today, I counted at least 15 times where other editors tried to revert you and an entire talk page conversation where you basically overruled others' objections because of sources that you decided were reputable essentially on your own. The French language page's consensus was even noted on this talk page in 2019 as a heads-up for people like you who wanted to change the infobox designation. Yet you disregarded that consensus and a dozen French language editors who have far more knowledge on LREM than you or I do, being from that country and engaging in its politics during their lifetimes. So yes, their decision bears weight and that's exactly what Economico was trying to tell you back in June when you decided to ignore them. I have patience and I tried to treat you with respect and operate in good faith. You've violated that trust by continuing to edit in bad faith and revert pages when a clear majority of interested editors do not agree with those changes. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, if the status quo is supposed to be maintained while there's a dispute going on that's clearly not what you are doing by shoving in centre-left which was not there before and not letting it be removed. This is solely you putting in the information you want without consensus and with ineligible sources and not letting anyone remove it or without any conclusion being reached here or any consensus being drawn on this matter, let alone one on the issue of centre-left. This is not maintaining any status quo, either of the long-held centre to centre-right or what was there immediately before that. Helper201 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My attempts were to reflect the status quo of the French language page. And the same would also go for your centre-right sources, which you added in June over the objections of most engaged users here (five of those users attempted to revert you 15 times), and which I attempted to revert earlier. A true status quo-- one that is completely neutral-- is to revert back to the version in May 2021 before any mention of LREM being centre-right was made. If you agree with that, I'll gladly revert back to that proper status quo. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As I've said, multiple editors restored this status quo when others tried to change it, not just me, because they recognised it was legitimately sourced. Those that tried to change it either gave no reason, didn't discuss it or provide any counter evidence as to why what was correctly cited was in any way illegitimate. No editors view has any more weight than anyone else’s regardless of their country of origin. Have whatever unevidenced views you want about my country of origin and knowledge, as they bear no weight or importance. The French language page has no bearing here. The rules for each language version of Wikipedia are different and consensus does not cross over between Wiki's. Helper201 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

One editor restored your version. The other reverted solely because I had accidentally blanked a couple of your primary sources. The number of editors who restored the original numbers above 15. Normally, editors don't keep reverting an article back to their preferred version after 15 people try to revert them, three of which attempted to bring you to this talk page to discuss your unilateral changes. You don't even deny that you created what you refer to as your own status quo. And of course there are no rules saying that one Wiki has bearing on another. But it is incredibly convincing and advisory that a dozen engaged editors on the French language page had this debate and came to a conclusion that didn't completely match yours. It is something any person with common sense would take into consideration. Same goes for their language or national background. Officially, of course, every editor's words have the same weight. But with some common sense, we can clearly see that certain people are experts in areas and we should take their opinions seriously, especially if they grew up in that country whose politics they engage in on a daily basis. The French language page's consensus isn't binding-- but any reasonable editor would be convinced of its findings. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

[Here] is the revision from the exact point on 15 May 2021 where the user above began making unilateral changes to the political positioning of LREM in this article. They reverted 15+ times in order to achieve what they wanted over others' objections, including those who voiced them on this talk page. So when we discuss status quo, let's be crystal clear about what that actually is. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of the reverts back to the status quo not by me: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Helper201 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverts back to the May 2021 status quo by all these different users from May to December 2021, in addition to comments from at least four others on this talk page that oppose a controversial move away from the May 2021 status quo. Many of these cited the French page's [discussion], as mentioned above, as existing advisory status quo due to native expertise. I strongly think we should respect the May 2021 status quo during ongoing discussions given this opposition and the French page's precedent, which was ignored even though it was pointed out on the talk page repeatedly. Of note is that many IP users (of different IP addresses) reverted over a period of six months, indicating that users in the general public were perplexed by the change. It was wrong of people on this page to brush the IP users off as "vandalism", assuming they were not acting in good faith when no established consensus had been reached at all. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is you've made absolutely no legitimate arguments according to Wikipedia guidelines as to why the citations I have given for centre-right should be removed other than by your own calculations they don't meet what you yourself constitute as a consensus. Therefore you think its legitimate to unilaterally remove them until you yourself are satisfied, if that's not WP:OWN, I don't know what is. They come from reliable sources and explicitly call the party centre-right, one is even an academic source for goodness’ sake. I have told you what's wrong with the sources you have given for centre-left in that they violate WP:SYNTH by not specifically referring to the party itself as centre-left, or are editorials/opinion pieces so therefore don't constitute statements of fact per WP:RSOPINION. On top of that you haven't even got consensus to add this claim of centre-left and then bar anyone from removing it for legitimate reasons like its incorrect sourcing which has clearly been outlined. You are literally asserting that editors’ opinions and views are more important than facts and legitimate sources and that simply by the fact of more people disagreeing it makes these legitimate sources in some way wrong and fine to remove. Yet your incorrectly sourced view that is not the status quo, nor has a consensus (of which you hold in the highest supreme above all else and apparently are the only judge of what meets your own view of what is and is not a consensus) is somehow fine to maintain and block anyone from getting rid of it. Helper201 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No one has ever removed your sources. They are still there. I agree that your sources are good: that's exactly why they weren't removed from the page in its current version. They still exist in the lede. You accuse people of doing things they did not do. The dispute here isn't over your sources, it's over the political party positioning in the infobox. Your sources are one of only a handful, including ones cited not just by me, but also by Economico in the original thread, that indicate that LREM can be seen widely as centre-left, centrist, and centre-right. Economico even went so far as to say that the party defies labeling. If this is the case, I could support doing what editors did for the American Democratic and Republican Parties' pages and just getting rid of a political positioning altogether in the infobox. As to the articles I cited, they are all by reputable news sources. They state conclusions as to LREM's positioning that don't violate a single word of the policies you stated. If you don't like the opinion articles (which are completely acceptable sources-- just as the opinion articles you cited are), I think at least 2-3 of them are pure news articles. Wikipedia isn't an academic journal. If you are allowed to add articles stating LREM is centre-right, other editors are totally allowed to add articles that show that the opposite is true as well. You are not the arbiter of whether a source is bad or good. Your interpretation is not the sole source, however much you may believe it is. This is why I didn't intentionally remove any of your sources at any point in my editing over the last 24 hours. And you wrongly accuse me of behavior that you have been exhibiting since the beginning of this dispute in June, where you overruled dozens of editors and ignored a talk page consensus that went against you. You've falsely behaved as if your original edit from May was the consensus all this time when it was clearly not, as evidenced by dozens of reverts by dozens of users since then. It is now finally time for others to weigh in in a fair forum. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you on about? YOU removed them! Here. Its only because of Amakuru reverting you that they were restored. The sources for centre-left clearly break these guidelines I mentioned above. If we go by editorials and opinion pieces and views not explicitly expressed by sources all sorts of wild claims could be falsely used to assert opinions as factual evidence about parties. People hold all sorts of ludicrous views like the Nazis being left-wing, would it be fine to legitimise an opinion like that as fact by citing it in the page or the infobox of the Nazi Party? And if more editors agreed with this false narrative then it would make it legitimate in your book? Helper201 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If you read more closely, I apologized to Amakuru for doing that above as it was an accident. It wasn't intentional. Again, this is not about your sources, which are good. If you have a personal dispute, come to my talk page and we can chat all we want about that. This discussion is about the infobox political positioning of LREM. My point with adding the additional articles (without removing yours) was to indicate that there are many who view the party as centre-left as well. This adds to the perspective that the party defies political categorization as a whole, which others have also said both here and on the French discussion page. And I don't think anyone by any stretch of their imagination would call Project Syndicate, WSJ, National Review, Pac Standard, and The Daily Conversation crazy outlets. They're reputable and respected news outlets, and it would be an understatement to say that your Nazi comparison is sensational and unreasonable. You should probably delete it. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said the sources were "crazy", I said they either did not explicitly state the claim you were using them to support in regards to the party being centre-left or are editorials or opinion pieces, which do not constitute statements of fact, per WP:RSOPINION. People tried making claims about the UK Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn being left-wing or far-left because it was the opinion of many (both editors and those in the media) that the party had moved this way under him. However, this was never maintained in the infobox of the party's Wikipedia page because the sources were just that, opinion pieces, like many you have cited. Take a look back at the edit history of that page and how many IPs and editors tried to make those claims about the party being left-wing or far-left. Were they substantiated because of pure weight of opinion? No. Logical reasoning was used instead and guidelines were followed regarding appropriate sources. I stand by my claim. Opinion pieces do not equal statements of fact and just because more people have a certain opinion about something doesn't make it correct or any more legitimate. That's the logic you are holding above all else, so the comparison is apt. Helper201 (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You should probably read at least some of the pieces before you go off comparing Jeremy Corbyn opinion articles to this. I and a dozen other editors could probably do some deeper research and come up with more articles, but they probably would still be rejected by an arbitrary standard you come up with for why they don't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Again, this isn't about the sources. This is about the political positioning of the infobox. 30+ different sources this discussion has collectively cited have clearly indicated that they're all over the place over whether this party is centrist, centre-left, or centre-right. Therefore, here are some options that are good starting points for editors to discuss: (1) we take Storm598's suggestion and revert back to May 2021's centre, seeing as that's usually what parties that are variously called centre-left and centre-right are designated as. (2) we keep it as centre-left to centre-right to match the French language page and their own very good and lengthy discussion that reached this conclusion on this topic. (3) we get rid of the political persuasion in the infobox altogether like what the US Democratic and Republican Party pages do, because LREM defies party labeling according to the sources Economico cited. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those who think that just "Centre" should be mentioned in the infobox. "Centre-left to centre-right" is quite nonsensical. --Checco (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I prefer solely "centre" – the consensus is that LREM is a centrist party, with the bulk of reliable references describing it as such. We shouldn't place WP:UNDUE on a single journalistic sources describing the party as centre-right (or centre-left), even if some might consider specific sources worth mentioning within the article body. However, I would note that many of the sources used for "centre-left" in particular are quite poor sources, mostly op-eds or similar opinion pieces, and some do not even use the term "centre-left" within the referenced texts. (Aside: I dislike using "[political position] to [political position]" descriptions in Infoboxes generally, and certainly when it's contradictory descriptions such as "centre-left to centre-right".)--Autospark (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Autospark, in regards to centre-right there are 5 supporting citations for this, not one. Also, one of these is a book from an academic in French and European politics. Helper201 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Helper201: Indeed you are right. And they seem stronger sources than those used for "centre-left" as well. Still, my preference is to list "centre" in the Infobox, as to mention in the Ideology section that the party has also been described as centre-right in orientation.--Autospark (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Largely agree on designating the party as Centre in the infobox, and removing the notation about ideology (including the sources) in the lede into the Ideology section. I'm beginning to see a consensus emerge around this, with at least 4 editors (Autospark, Checco, me, and Storm598) in favor. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and make this change within 24 hours. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think centre in the infobox is better that what is currently there and moving the other positions to the ideology section. So, I would support this over how the article currently stands. However, I don't support this long-term or think this should be the final solution, I just think it’s better than how the page currently stands out of only those two options. Ultimately, I think more options should be explored and more editors should be allowed to give their input but changing to centre for now would be better than how it currently stands. Helper201 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Completely agreed on continuing a discussion of further options. Changes made. Thanks to all for the teamwork on this. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to address the sources for centre-left one by one:

• Project Syndicate source - This is one where I see a WP:SYNTH issue as I don't see anywhere where it explicitly calls La République En Marche! centre-left. The source also specifically and explicitly refers to itself as an "Opinion Page", therefore there's the issue regarding WP:RSOPINION. I mean we could maybe include it as a compromise if people feel really strongly about keeping it with the caveat that we explicitly state that its an opinion/opinion piece, not simply refer to it as a "source" as is currently done in the ideology section, which makes it seem equivalent to non-opinion pieces, which it is not, its definitely of lesser note (if any at all).

• Opinion: Can Emmanuel Macron change France? - Again, this is clearly an opinion piece and should be highlighted as such, not made to be equivalent to non-opinion articles.

• The French Difference, First Round - This like the first source has the WP:SYNTH issue as nowhere on the page does it explicitly call La République En Marche! centre-left.

Helper201 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Marcon's party does in fact have center-right tendencies. Here's the cited article: (https://jacobinmag.com/2022/04/marine-le-pen-populism-national-rally-france-elections-iron-fist-velvet-glove) in the section titled "An Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove". It even describes Macron as performing a hostile takeover of the center-right. NowhereMan17 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus about En Marche!'s political position

For the french page, we decided that En Marche is a centre-left to centre-right party because three sources (you can find them as sources for the centre-right position of the party) mentioned (but not explicitly and those sources are not really about en marche's political position) En Marche as a centre-right to centre-left party. Economico98 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

LREM is centre-right to right-wing MELT1917 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that "lrem" is centre-right. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The grounds of removing centre-right

There is a problem with the current consesus, and that is that we created a consesus out of something that has never been a problem.

Let's first start with the sources describing LREM centre-left, and I'll copy this from Helper.

I'd like to address the sources for centre-left one by one:

Project Syndicate source - This is one where I see a WP:SYNTH issue as I don't see anywhere where it explicitly calls La République En Marche! centre-left. The source also specifically and explicitly refers to itself as an "Opinion Page", therefore there's the issue regarding WP:RSOPINION. I mean we could maybe include it as a compromise if people feel really strongly about keeping it with the caveat that we explicitly state that its an opinion/opinion piece, not simply refer to it as a "source" as is currently done in the ideology section, which makes it seem equivalent to non-opinion pieces, which it is not, its definitely of lesser note (if any at all).

• Opinion: Can Emmanuel Macron change France? - Again, this is clearly an opinion piece and should be highlighted as such, not made to be equivalent to non-opinion articles.

• The French Difference, First Round - This like the first source has the WP:SYNTH issue as nowhere on the page does it explicitly call La République En Marche! centre-left.

Okay, that was what Helper said.

But the debate was about sources too, so then we have to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and per that I checked all three centre-left sources used have no spot there, which means we can't verify how reliable they are.

Whilst for centre-right, we have an academic work, clearly very reliable. Republic of Islamophobia

Secondly, we have Reuters which describes it as centre-right, and per WP:RSPSOURCES is considered fully reliable. We also have Washingtonpost that describes it as centre-right and is considered fully reliable. And lastly we have Forbes that describes as centre-right and is considered fully reliable.

And although a consesus was reached as centre, three fully reliable sources and an academic work falling on the grounds to sources that describe as centre-left and can't be verified in WP:RSPSOURCES surely is strange. We can surely find many sources describing a party in all ways, but the reliable sources should always be seen as the deciding factor.

Here is another interesting article by NY Times (also considered fully reliable). Macron, Once a Darling of Liberals, Shows a New Face as Elections Near

"A centrist straddling France’s traditional political divide, President Emmanuel Macron now chases voters on the right and has alienated some supporters and members of his own party."

Basically in 2017 this party would only be centre, but in the recent years/months they have been moving to the right/chasing right-wing voters. And this is confirmed by other sources too, Macron’s right-wing gamble

Well I might be a bit late because I have been busy, but as said, a reliable source should be considered more than an unreliable source/not well known source if it is not academic. And with these sources, the centre-right claim is not far reached.

And lastly have a good day everyone, cheers. @EndlessCoffee54:,@Helper201:,@Autospark: BastianMAT (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree. Thank you for your input. Helper201 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am currently in the middle of studying for final exams. Once the break comes in a week, I'm far more willing to look for other reliable sources that the party is centre-left. But there is a pretty substantial majority of engaged editors who believe (as I do) that the infobox designation "Centre" is valid because the party is liberal, it's a member of liberal international unions, it has former members from both LR/UMP and PS, its leader has largely been described as a centrist in the majority of the news articles. Centrists may chase the right or the left all the time, but it doesn't make them any less centrist. I'm relatively sure that the consensus is settled on "Centre" in the infobox, so I think this is a discussion that should be focused on whether centre-left belongs in the Ideology section. That's a discussion that I'm very happy to have. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

BastianMAT you might want to open a request for comment in order to get a response from more editors on this matter judging by the current response rate. Helper201 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To add to the previous sources for centre-right I have also found these:

• Macron's new government: Five things to look out for in France in 2020 – Euronews. Published 7 July 2020.

Some quotes from the article:

"Overall, the new appointments confirm a shift to the centre-right of his "La République en Marche" (LREM) movement, to the dismay of many on the left."

"Macron's is a centre-right government"

"Vincent Martigny, a professor in political science at the University of Nice and the Ecole Polytechnique, says Macron's presidency has evolved from the movement that sought to break the mould of French politics in 2017". "What you can see in the new government is the amazing weight of the centre-right, confirming that Macron is not any more going beyond the traditional right-left political gap or cleavage, but rather confirming that "La République en Marche" is a centre-right party," he told Euronews."

""Clearly for Emmanuel Macron, his strategy for 2022 is to be the right-wing candidate and to make sure that there is no-one coming from 'Les Républicains', the right-wing party, coming as a contender," Alexis Poulin, political analyst and founder of Le Monde Moderne, told Euronews."

• France's Macron loses majority as defectors form new party – BBC News. Published 19 May 2020.

"The analysis may well be correct. Polls show that more voters on the right than on the left generally approve of the Macron presidency. He has shifted rightwards."

Helper201 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are three more citations from reliable sources that call the party centre-right on top of all those I have already given:

• France's Macron set for Covid test in local vote. BBC News. "Her list is currently running neck and neck with their centre-right/LREM opponent."

• Marine Le Pen blames poor results on low turnout. The Daily Telegraph. "Mr Macron’s centre-Right LREM party, only gathered 11 per cent of the vote and is not expected to win any regions."

• Macron and Le Pen battle over pensions as French election race tightens. Reuters. "One first, major challenge would be for his centre-right La Republique en Marche (LaRem) party, which has failed in all recent local elections, to win a parliamentary election in June."

Helper201 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As was pretty clearly established by sourcing in the prior thread about this, the party is center-right in France and center-left in Europe more broadly. Our article should reflect this, and in the infobox say center-right (or centre-right), since the default context is that of the country. Calling this a liberal party is very misleading to most of our readers, even if two sources can be found to support such a claim. We should not be directly contradicting the fr.wikipedia version of this article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Centre-right

LREM is right-of-centre party therefore I don’t see the problem with including centre-right in it 70.75.203.152 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

LREM now renamed "Renaissance"

The name change was announced today, as part of the campaign launch for the legislative elections. Culloty82 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

What about moving the article to Renaissance (French political party), consistently with Renaissance (Italian political party)? --Checco (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is too early to move. The change did not occur yet. Vacant0 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So when does the change occur? After the parliamentary elections and/or when the group is formally created in the new parliament? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Does the Renaissance Party have a new logo to replace the old LREM logo? If they do that then I think we should move the page. DishonorableKnight (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea, it has been some time since the name change announcement but I am unsure if a new logo has been, or will ever be made. Rh0809 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

LREM has now been renamed Renaissance, having modified its statutes yesterday. Nontrivial (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 12 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. While there's a few different issues at play here, there's a rough consensus in favor of this move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 05:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

---

La République En Marche! → Renaissance (party) – It is stated in the lead that the party's name has changed. Therefore, should the page be moved and now be called Renaissance? Helper201 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This was mis-listed as an RfC, so I've converted it into an proper RM. The original poster did not suggest a particular disambiguation, so I picked "(party)".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Should be WP:CONSISTENT with the closely related article now at Renaissance group. Five months is long enough to wait.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose LREM didn't change its name to Renaissance, it still to this day uses La République En Marche! / En Marche as its name. The name of their parliamentary group was only changed to Renaissance. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Vacant0, if that's the case that should be made clear in the lead and the main body of the article with a supporting citation. Currently as its written in the lead it makes it out as if the party as a whole simply underwent a name change. Helper201 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Both sources refer to the parliamentary group, not the party. I'll correct this. Vacant0 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as far as I can ascertain, the parliamentary group changed its name, not the party itself. It certainly seems as if the party's website and social media presence continue to use the name "La République En Marche" or "En Marche".--Autospark (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support The change of name has now happened (see above). Nontrivial (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per Nontrivial. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's color has also changed to   (#00205b) and the new logo can be seen here. Vacant0 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've added the new logo to the article, although it will remain commented until the move occurs. Vacant0 (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly support (or a new article). On September 17, the LREM party officially changed its name to RE and merged with TDP and Agir.. We can either rename the LREM article or create a new article after de facto merging the three parties PLATEL (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The party officially changed its name yesterday. It's web entry has also been changed (http://parti-renaissance.fr) Ngagnebin (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• New article- as far as I can tell, LREM merged with Agir and Territoire de Progrès into a new party called Renaissance. Similar to the precedent with UDM/Republicans, I think a new article on the Renaissance party would make most sense. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chessrat. This was not merely a simple name change, it's an outright merger of 3 parties. Renaissance should have its own article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly support new name. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support renaming the article in principle; 50/50 support creating a new, separate article for the newly-merged Renaissance party.--Autospark (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Request: Can we please change the new name to Renaissance (political party in France), or something similar? It seems to be standard convention to use "political party" in brackets, rather than just "party", such as in the case of Vox (political party). I would have opted for simply Renaissance (political party), but a redirect to a disambiguation page already exists for this. Helper201 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support the move in principle, but I strongly reccomend a different name like "Renaissance (political party)" or "Renaissance (France)". It would be even better to have two distinct articles, of which the brand-new one would be named "Renaissance (political party)" or "Renaissance (France)". --Checco (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• New article – it merged with TDP and Agir so it is not just LREM anymore Braganza (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for the new article per most reliable sources, it's clear that La République En Marche! merged with Agir and Territories of Progress forming new political party. I suggest considering the name Renaissance (party) or Renaissance (French political party), and better avoid titles such as Renaissance (France) because it could be disambiguation and confused with French Renaissance article. –Dav988 (talk), 15:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - however, contrary to some of the above comments, there has been no merger with Agir and Territories of Progress. LREM has been refounded as Renaissance, in other words the former was abolished in favour of the latter which received new statutes only recently. Agir and TdP, which were not En Marche but were allied to it as minor parties within the presidential coalition retain this status, however what has changed is that whereas one could formerly be a member of any Macron-compatible party (like Horizons) and join LREM, now one can only hold dual party membership between RE and Agir or TdP. On this basis, I would support the renaming of the page rather than the creation of a new page, although if it is judged that LREM has such a significant history on its own and that Renaissance really constitutes a turning point then creating a new page would be intelligent (but I don't think this is the case!). On the point concerning the eventual name, I would be in favour of Renaissance (French political party), obviously if it can be shorter that's better, but Renaissance (party) goes against the general Wikipedia convention which is to use the more precise phrase of 'political party' in page names and it is true that Renaissance (France) could potentially lead to confusion, although I'm not entirely opposed to the suggestion. Myotub (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naming

The article's new name is an improvement, but I think that Renaissance (political party) or Renaissance (French political party) would be further improvements. -- Checco (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and since disambiguating from Renaissance (Italian political party) is obvious enough but not mentioned in the discussion, I've moved it. If this is controversial for any reason, we can bring it to discussion, but seems straightforward. czar 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed DFlhb (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! What about trasnforming Reinassance (party) as a disambiguation for the various parties named that way? --Checco (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done czar 17:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

500,000 councilors?

The text says "For the 2020 municipal elections, LREM set itself the objective of obtaining 10,000 municipal councilors (out of a total of 500,000 elected)." That manyh councilors sounds very unlikely, and 10,000 out of 500,000 sounds like a very low objective... should this be "50,000" instead of 500,000? Eti erik (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Political position?

Big tent :  ·  ·  ·  · Hérisson grognon (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You could easily find sources on several positions, but the party is virtually unanimously classified as centrist—and "big tent" is no political position. --Checco (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Liberalism / social-liberalism

Hi @Checco: did you read fr:Discussion:Renaissance (parti) ?

TLDR: in the French sources, there is no consensus for "libéralisme" after 2017, but "social-libéralisme" occurs very often and in varied sources.

Fourmidable (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not read that talk and, as you know, consensus in fr.Wikipedia is not automatically consensus in en.Wikipedia. Also, it seems to me that "social liberalism" might have a slightly different meaning in France than elsewhere. By the way, did you read Talk:Renaissance (French political party)/Archive 2? After a long discussion, it was decided that only "liberalism" was to be kept in the article's infobox. That is what I am going to do. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Checco: Indeed, liberal does not mean liberalism in English (rather social-liberal). But thus, the correct ideology is social-liberalism, not liberalism. Fourmidable (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)